Whether a policyholder, etc. may terminate an insurance contract on the ground of a violation of the duty of disclosure stipulated in the terms and conditions where the insurer, etc. entered into the insurance contract in violation of the duty of disclosure (negative)

The insurer and the persons engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts are obligated to explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the contents of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the entries in the written subscription for insurance contract, etc., which are contained in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, in conclusion of the insurance contract. Therefore, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to explain the terms and conditions, it may not claim the contents of the terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract. Therefore, even if the policyholder or its agent violated such duty to notify as stipulated in the terms

Article 651 of the Commercial Act, Article 156 (1) 1 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Shindong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant Law Firm Seo Sea General Law Office, Attorneys Jin-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Incheon District Court Decision 91Na179 delivered on July 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

The insurer and the person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of the insurance contract are obliged to specify and explain the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the contents of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, and changes in the entries in the written application for the insurance contract, which are contained in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, in conclusion of the insurance contract. Therefore, when the insurer concludes the insurance contract in violation of such duty to explain and explain, the insurer cannot claim the contents of the terms and conditions as the contents of the insurance contract. Therefore, even if the policyholder or his agent violated such duty to notify as stipulated in the terms and conditions, it should not be possible to cancel

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in making the insurance contract of this case, the non-party 1, an employee of the business office of the plaintiff company of this case, based on the following evidences: the non-party 2, an agent of the defendant, newly changed the contents and rate system of the automobile insurance product of this case to the non-party 2, who is the policyholder of this case, did not provide a specific and detailed explanation as to the change in the contents of the automobile insurance contract, especially the concept and importance of the main driver, the court below lawfully confirmed the fact that he prepared the insurance subscription form, etc. based on the contract relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2; since the non-party 2 did not explain the specific and detailed explanation as to the main driver system newly established to the above non-party 2 at the time of the conclusion of the above insurance contract, the plaintiff's insurance contract of this case on the ground of the non-party 2's violation of the above duty of disclosure is illegal, and it is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract of this case.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)